Vertical split rings

Balderdash said:
All else being equal, I would rather have the steel Tally units (lets not get started on the Talley LW); however, I've used 20+ sets of Warnes without a single issue, and some had/have a ton of use and shooting on them, so I wouldn't fret the Warnes. And the Warnes fit a number of mounts vs Tally using a proprietary design.
Click to expand...
Ya the Warnes on my A-bolt have held the same zero for 14 years and have flown on a plane 4 times. Not gonna sweat the ones I already installed.
 
RCST1111 said:
You have me talked into the Talleys for future mounts. Warne lists “Sintered Steel” which is powdered metal. There are some claims for vibration dampening benefits etc. but I don’t know how much of that is snake oil. I would rather have machined parts.
Click to expand...
Everyone I know really likes them.

If ordering from anyone other than Talley I noticed descriptions are not always clear if the ring fits the smaller dovetail base or a pic rail. At that time it seemed the pic rail rings were much less common.

The last ones I picked up last year came with both socket head cap screws and the adjustable winged screws for the base clamp.
 
RCST1111 said:
Thanks for the photo. I have removable ones like on the left for one of my takedown rifles and it does not change zero when you take it off and on as long as you follow the instructions and fully torque the bottom to 25 in-lbs. before setting up the top at 15 in-lbs. I hope this conversation dispels a lot of the myth surrounding these mounts. I find them ideal.
Click to expand...

I always found this video to be a good illustration of how they count on the bottom screws to both clamp the scope and the rail.

In watching it, it doesn't seem like he changed the driver setting from 25 in-lbs on the base to 15 in-lbs on the top as you say is correct. Do you think that is why its not tight on the base? because they torqued too tight on the top that it lost it's tension on the bottom?

They rely on scope tube and/or ring deformation under torque to hold in place. Due to this, how much a scope tube deforms when torquing the top rings would seem to impact what the appropriate torque of the top screws is id think because how much the scope/rings do or dont deform should impact how tight the base screws are holding. Its a compromise without worthy justification vs horizontal split rings.
 
wind gypsy said:
I always found this video to be a good illustration of how they count on the bottom screws to both clamp the scope and the rail.

In watching it, it doesn't seem like he changed the driver setting from 25 in-lbs on the base to 15 in-lbs on the top as you say is correct. Do you think that is why its not tight on the base? because they torqued too tight on the top that it lost it's tension on the bottom?

They rely on scope tube and/or ring deformation under torque to hold in place. Due to this, how much a scope tube deforms when torquing the top rings would seem to impact what the appropriate torque of the top screws is id think because how much the scope/rings do or dont deform should impact how tight the base screws are holding. Its a compromise without worthy justification vs horizontal split rings.
Click to expand...
It is because a steel tube is being used. It will not allow the ring to compress uniformly and is stretching the rings of the mount and putting all of the forces into the top screws. The only part of the rings that can flex in this instance since a scope is not being used is the very top. I imagine that it is pulling the bottom apart completely. It has nothing to do with this, but I used to have that same torque wrench, and it can be off by 5 in*lbs. when compared to fix-it sticks or other better calibrated wrenches. I ended up getting rid of it. Not the issue here though.
 
RCST1111 said:
It is because a steel tube is being used. It will not allow the ring to compress uniformly and is stretching the rings of the mount and putting all of the forces into the top screws. The only part of the rings that can flex in this instance since a scope is not being used is the very top. I imagine that it is pulling the bottom apart completely. It has nothing to do with this, but I used to have that same torque wrench, and it can be off by 5 in*lbs. when compared to fix-it sticks or other better calibrated wrenches. I ended up getting rid of it. Not the issue here though.
Click to expand...

Different scope tubes wont compress uniformly either though. I'm sure some tubes are much thinner walled than others.
 
wind gypsy said:
I always found this video to be a good illustration of how they count on the bottom screws to both clamp the scope and the rail.

In watching it, it doesn't seem like he changed the driver setting from 25 in-lbs on the base to 15 in-lbs on the top as you say is correct. Do you think that is why its not tight on the base? because they torqued too tight on the top that it lost it's tension on the bottom?
Click to expand...
The only function of the single screw is to tighten the ring onto the base, so why wouldn’t he do that? Did he get into grandmas Oxycodone prescription?

Yes, you’re also right the bottom double screw should be tighter than the two screws on top.

IMG_0394.jpeg
 
TaperPin said:
The only function of the single screw is to tighten the ring onto the base, so why wouldn’t he do that? Did he get into grandmas Oxycodone prescription?
Click to expand...
What are you suggesting? The 25 in-lb he tightened the base to (which apparently is warnes published direction) is not sufficient?
 
Oh I get it, the idea was to show how tension on the base changes as the scope tube is clamped and where the bottom two screws are acts like a hinge. Yeah, those bottom two need to be cranked down tight so it can’t hinge.
 
wind gypsy said:
I always found this video to be a good illustration of how they count on the bottom screws to both clamp the scope and the rail.

In watching it, it doesn't seem like he changed the driver setting from 25 in-lbs on the base to 15 in-lbs on the top as you say is correct. Do you think that is why its not tight on the base? because they torqued too tight on the top that it lost it's tension on the bottom?

They rely on scope tube and/or ring deformation under torque to hold in place. Due to this, how much a scope tube deforms when torquing the top rings would seem to impact what the appropriate torque of the top screws is id think because how much the scope/rings do or dont deform should impact how tight the base screws are holding. Its a compromise without worthy justification vs horizontal split rings.
Click to expand...
Vertical split rings are a poor solution looking for a problem that doesn't exist. Any variability in base dimensions can be translated to the ring torque/clamping force. If the base is narrow, the top is flexed further apart.

I'm a hater because they wouldn't even tighten on my ruger at the base. They are very sensitive to base dimensions by design, and there is zero technical justification for this design, only drawbacks.
 
We’re talking about two different styles of Warne rings.

You are right - the style that only has 4 screws does exist and I’d never own a pair. Horrible design that does indeed rely on the bottom screws to clamp the base.
.IMG_0395.jpeg
 
TaperPin said:
The other side of the rings have the 5th screw. It’s either an intentional misrepresentation or Oxy.
Click to expand...

I see. So is the quick release lever supposed to be full open when torquing the base screws, then torque the top screws, then turn the quick release lever?

I would have assumed the quick release was fully tight when the base screws were torqued to ensure a more accurate torque value than a QR lever..
 
wind gypsy said:
I see. So is the quick release lever supposed to be full open when torquing the base screws, then torque the top screws, then turn the quick release lever?

I would have assumed the quick release was fully tight when the base screws were torqued to ensure a more accurate torque value than a QR lever..
Click to expand...
The qr lever (or single screw) is loose until the bottom ring screws are tightened. The qr lever (or single screw) then locks the ring to the base and lastly the top screws locks the scope in place. Talleys ship with both a single screw and qr wing. I think you’re right about the wing not providing a very good way to get accurate torque.
 
Thanks for posting that video - I thought I’ve been going crazy the past few years arguing for the 5 screw rings while so many were talking about a completely different design in the 4 screw model.
 
TaperPin said:
The qr lever (or single screw) is loose until the bottom ring screws are tightened. The qr lever (or single screw) then locks the ring to the base and lastly the top screws locks the scope in place. Talleys ship with both a single screw and qr wing. I think you’re right about the wing not providing a very good way to get accurate torque.
Click to expand...

I had to go back and look again - I assumed the base screws were torquing to the same clamp as the QR lever but it seems like they are strictly clamping the scope and the QR lever is the sole source of clamping the rail? So basically they function similarly to 4 screw horizontal cap screws but instead of a scope resting on the bottom half prior to screw tightening its resting beween two halves. I dont see the benefit to being vertical there either?
 
wind gypsy said:
I had to go back and look again - I assumed the base screws were torquing to the same clamp as the QR lever but it seems like they are strictly clamping the scope and the QR lever is the sole source of clamping the rail? So basically they function similarly to 4 screw horizontal cap screws but instead of a scope resting on the bottom half prior to screw tightening its resting beween two halves. I dont see the benefit to being vertical there either?
Click to expand...
Yes, I think you have it right. There’s no real benefit to being vertical other than the slim shape of the rings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Featured Video

Stats

Threads
363,829
Messages
3,851,730
Members
82,567
Latest member
chudson224

Latest Articles

Back
Top